V.Srinivasan (HUF), Villupuram V. ITO, Villupuram

ITA 885/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6349 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC C BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.885/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI V. SRINIVASAN (HUF), 181-BAZAAR STREET, SANKARAPURAM, VILLURPURAM 605 111 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, VILLUPURAM. PAN: AABHV0281P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- PUDUCHERRY, DATED 27.12.2016 IN ITA NO.29/CIT(A)-PD Y/2014-15 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S .143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH A DELAY O F 42 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION STATING T HAT BY OVERSIGHT THEY HAVE FAILED TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THE LD.AR PLEADED BEFORE US THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF 2 ITA NO.885/MDS/2017 JUSTICE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CASE TO SU CCEED. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A R. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, THOUGH I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE LETHARGI C ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IM OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 42 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL REQUIRES TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 42 DAYS I N FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPE AL ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD MADE ADDITION FOR RS.23,14,320 /- ON PEAK CREDIT BASIS, WHICH WAS FURTHER ENHANCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.38,22,700/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A HUF EARNING INCOME FROM TANKER LORRY OPERATIONS AND ALS O TRADING IN PROVISIONS & GENERAL GOODS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 28.09.2011 ELECTRONICALL Y, ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,51,756/-. INITIALLY THE RETUR N WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND FINALLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/ S.143(3) OF THE 3 ITA NO.885/MDS/2017 ACT ON 28.02.2014, WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.23,14,320/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ENHANCED BY T HE LD.CIT(A) TO RS.38,22,700/-. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CAS H DEPOSITS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AGGREGATING TO RS.41,89,000/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH LAKSHMI VILAS BANK , SANKARAPURAM. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REVEALED THE ABO VE MENTIONED SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INC OME. FURTHER IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS WHILE PREPARING ITS FINAL ACCOU NTS. THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE C ASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WAS RECEIPTS FROM ITS TANK ER LORRY OPERATION. HOWEVER, IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD OPERATED THE TANKER LORRY ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS IN TH E RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE, THE LD.AO COMPUTED THE P EAK CASH CREDIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS ITS UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHICH WOR KED TO RS.23,14,320/-. 4 ITA NO.885/MDS/2017 6. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THE PEAK CREDIT T O BE THE CUMULATIVE CASH CREDIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DUR ING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.38,22,70 0/- AND THEREBY ENHANCED THE ADDITION. 7. BEFORE US THE LD.AR ARGUED STATING THAT THE CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF THE JEWEL LOAN AVAIL ED FROM THE BANK AND ALSO OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE CASH CR EDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE PEAK CREDIT COMPUTATION MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BECA USE HE HAD ADOPTED THE CUMULATIVE CASH DEPOSIT AS THE PEAK CRE DIT. THE LD.AR THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD.AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHE MENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET I FIN D THE CASH CREDIT COMPUTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUS E HE HAS ADOPTED THE CUMULATIVE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNT AS THE PEAK CREDIT. THE COMPUTATION OF PEAK CREDIT BY THE LD.AO IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE HE HAS COMPUTED THE PEAK CREDIT BASED ON THE 5 ITA NO.885/MDS/2017 PEAK CREDIT OF THE ASSESSEE ON ANY GIVEN POINT OF T IME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTH ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH CREDIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS FROM THE JEWEL LOAN AND CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CASH CR EDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK. THEREFORE I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THAT REGARD. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A H UF WHEREIN THERE ARE OTHER CO-PARCENERS WHOSE FINANCIAL POSITION SHO ULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHILE MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HUF, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 14 TH AUGUST, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 14 TH AUGUST, 2017 6 ITA NO.885/MDS/2017 JR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF